Hilton has removed a Hampton Inn franchise in Lakeville, Minnesota, from its booking system following accusations that the hotel denied service to U.S. Immigration and Enforcement agents. The swift action came after a video surfaced showing a hotel employee explicitly refusing rooms to an individual posing as a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official.
Initial Accusations and Company Response
The controversy began when DHS publicly criticized Hilton and Everpeak Hospitality, the owner of the Lakeville Hampton Inn, alleging a “coordinated campaign” to deny service to federal law enforcement. Both companies issued apologies, stating their policy is to welcome all guests, including government agencies. However, a subsequent video posted by a conservative influencer proved those statements false; the hotel employee confirmed the discriminatory practice was ongoing.
Escalation and Booking Site Removal
Within a day of the video’s release, Hilton pulled the Lakeville location from its website. Third-party booking platforms, including Expedia and Booking.com, followed suit, effectively halting all reservations at the hotel. This rapid response highlights the severity with which Hilton treats breaches of its franchise agreements and public relations crises.
Franchise Structure and Lack of Comment
Hilton operates through a franchise model, meaning the Lakeville hotel is independently owned and operated. While Hilton’s spokesperson has not confirmed if the franchise agreement was terminated, the removal from booking systems suggests a decisive break. Attempts to reach Everpeak Hospitality for comment were unsuccessful.
Broader Implications and Industry Standards
This incident raises questions about the extent of anti-government sentiment within the hospitality industry and the pressure faced by businesses to accommodate federal law enforcement. The case underscores the need for clear, enforced policies regarding service to government personnel, especially in an era of heightened political tension.
In conclusion, Hilton’s swift action reflects the reputational risk of associating with discriminatory practices. The incident serves as a warning to franchise owners about upholding company standards and the consequences of violating them. This case highlights the growing scrutiny on businesses regarding their treatment of law enforcement and government officials.
